Best UFO video ever recorded?

Originally posted by gortex
All you need to use is your eyes , does it look look real ? .... I would say it looks like a model on a string imposed onto the background .
Where are the witness reports , broad daylight and a disk is hovering by , and then behind high rise buildings and nobody reports it , all there is is this bit of footage .

Yes, this is exactly how we know its fake, its just as you rightly say common sense that this object was never there. Something that big over a major city so low in the sky and for so long would have been snapped all over the place.

As for the tech to do it not being around...Rubbish..

There were dedicated video production software and hardware well before that, you had the Amiga Video Toaster hardware and software which was designed to do chroma key effects and numerous PC softwares designed again to be able to create these sorts of effects, the only differences now is that the software has evolved and that the CPU's are far faster and better farmed.

But one thing I've noted that makes this almost a million percent a fake is that the lighting on the object does not match.

The object is lit from the left with its right side darker yet the buildings and other things like the tank on the building are CLEARLY lit from the right so unless we have two suns then either the city is fake or the object is.

Originally posted by jesiaha
OMG the 1950's movies were RIGHT... ufos DO wobble

Lay off the moonshine ET's, dont drink and drive now and be safe out there!

You would do well to read the book "The Hidden Times", possibly the best book on UFO's and the media I have ever read. The movies of the 50's were often a direct effort to discredit the UFO phenomenon.

This looks like a simple mask to me, alpha mask on the buildings, the layer behind it would be where the shot of the disc on a string would be placed, allowing for it to appear to move behind the buildings.

If this took place, you'd have thousands of witnesses, look at it, 50 feet above the roofs, sorry folks, not buying it.

I don't think this is a CG effect as you'd use the term now, but I do believe this was 2 shots merged into 1. A shot of a disk on a string in front of the camera, then the shot of the city backdrop.

Best ufo ? Hardly.

reply to post by OptimisticPessimist

It must be very lonesome being so biased and narrow minded.

some would say the same thing about blindly believing every ufo video to be real. Who's actually searching for the truth here? Those of us weeding out the fakes to find the legit ones, or those who assume every one is legit and moan and whine when we point out obvious problems?

if you search ATS you will see there as already been a thread for this HOAX it lasted one page ,so i dont know why people are believing it now ,the Mexican city in which it was filmed is maybe the 3rd most populated cities in the world and your telling me only this video exists no CCTV no holliday makers getting it on there camcorders or photos from residents in the buildings that the UFO is hovering near .and still people here will argue " o but it was filmed in 97 and no where in mexico would have that sort of tech to make this sort of hoax " .face it folks its a hoax and not even a very good one .

reply to post by Enter Ruin


Hey first I dont wana bash your thread but this is a hoax. I suggest you check out the 'space tether incident' this is the one that for me started to make me believe, its exeptional and much better than this one.

Sorry again but this has been provecd as a fake and is known to be a video widely used as an example of faked footage,

If I remember correctly when it was enhanced the 'ufo's' outline is visible in the building its suppost to be traveling behind, so it wasn't even edited thoroughly.

Im sure someone else has mentioned this already but I just wanted to get in there incase coxz I dont wana ready the 3 pages.

Originally posted by phishyblankwaters
reply to post by OptimisticPessimist

 

It must be very lonesome being so biased and narrow minded.

some would say the same thing about blindly believing every ufo video to be real. Who's actually searching for the truth here? Those of us weeding out the fakes to find the legit ones, or those who assume every one is legit and moan and whine when we point out obvious problems?

I have to agree, I've had the same insult hurled at myself yet I've made it clear I am a believer.

I like yourself weed out the fakes so there's a bit of clarity to the subject, that particular one has a serious lighting issue that proves its fake but still people sit gawping at it and refusing to believe its fake.

With many I suspect its more to do with them not wishing to admit they got it wrong and were taken in..

There's no shame in getting it wrong, with todays tech its damn hard to root out the high class fakes but I wish people once shown beyond any doubt its a fake that they would just accept it and not make snide comments.

reply to post by shambles84

Thank you for providing a clear and intelligent response. It certainly beats "it's fake because I say so".

However, "fingerprints of a hoax" were discovered when the motion smear or edge blur or "diffuseness" of the UFO image was compared with the smear/blur/diffuseness of the images of the buildings. Jeffrey Sainio published his overall analysis of the differential image smear in the October 1998 issue of the MUFON Journal. This showed that on the average the motion smear of the building was greater than any measurable motion smear of the UFO image.

It is possible that the "motion smear" seen on the building edge is a direct result of the "field propulsion" the craft may be using, which David Froning mentions in the video. From Wikipedia:

Field propulsion is the concept of spacecraft propulsion where no propellant is necessary but instead momentum of the spacecraft is changed by an interaction of the spacecraft with external force fields.

The intense field of energy surrounding the craft would be imperceptible when viewed with a clear sky as background, but if the field came in close enough proximity to a physical object -- such as a building -- it may become visible due to interaction with the object's physical properties.

It's just an idea. In any case, I would like to see some evidence of the alleged "motion smear" before going any further.

I'd like to address the wobble of the craft. It looks very unstable, sort of like a gyroscope that has not reached a stable speed. Surely many of you have played with toy gyroscopes. You spin them up and they fly around on the floor for a few seconds before they start to slow down. They begin to wobble, then more and more until they collapse on the floor. This craft wobbles exactly like a gyroscope beginning to wind down. The craft itself is clearly spinning (left to right as you look at it), but not all that fast, though that can be deceiving if it is going exactly the right speed. Now I'm not saying that it IS on a string, but if it WERE on a string, it would behave just like we see. But let's not go there this round.

If there are people (or entities) in that thing, they cannot be having a smooth ride. Now maybe they have blood made of dramamine. Maybe it is remote controlled and nobody is in there. Who knows? But the fact is the craft is not at all stable. Yet we have the technology to make otherwise unstable crafts fly much better than what we see here. Both the B-2 and the F-117 stealth airplanes cannot be flown directly by humans. They both have intermediary computers that make constant minute adjustments to keep planes like that in the air. If you were to turn off the computers, those things would crash. I know neither one is a round saucer-shaped thing, but the point is really that we are capable of making an unsteady craft stable. Why is this craft not stable?

reply to post by FOXMULDER147

post by FOXMULDER147
It's just an idea. In any case, I would like to see some evidence of the alleged "motion smear" before going any further.

Analysis from Bruce Maccabee

The following composite picture contains the only two frames in the video in which the edge blur of the buildings is easy to see with the naked eye. It also contains, for comparison, frames for which there is negligible blur of the building edges. The UFO images in the four frames have been copied and placed near one another for easy comparison. (Note that the vertical left edges of the building are always rough and grainy because of the horizontal scanning of the video readout system.) Compare the amount of blur or diffuseness of the bottom (horizontal) edge of the UFO image in the four frames with the amount of blur or diffuseness of the top (horizontal) edge of building in the four frames.
brumac.8k.com...

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/e72fa6cb57b1.gif[/atsimg]

I think this video looks interesting for its day..But its not the best UFO video Ive ever seen lol.This video to me isn't very convincing..I'm not going to come out and say its fake because we just don't know..but my eyes tell me this just isn't the real deal..

Has anyone analysed the motion tracking of the video? I'm no expert, but to me it seems that the craft moves very differently within the frame than the surrounding buildings and environment.

Some great things have already been done with this case, but I'd love to see some real motion analysis.

Originally posted by gortex

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/e72fa6cb57b1.gif[/atsimg]

In the frames on the left the camera is moving vertically, following the UFO (which is also moving vertically). The buildings (and windsocks) are stationary, so you would expect them to show vertical motion blur (as we see). The UFO, however, is moving vertically with the camera - so why would there be any vertical motion blur??

Very inconclusive, IMO.

Originally posted by gortex
reply to post by FOXMULDER147

 

post by FOXMULDER147
It's just an idea. In any case, I would like to see some evidence of the alleged "motion smear" before going any further.

Analysis from Bruce Maccabee

The following composite picture contains the only two frames in the video in which the edge blur of the buildings is easy to see with the naked eye. It also contains, for comparison, frames for which there is negligible blur of the building edges. The UFO images in the four frames have been copied and placed near one another for easy comparison. (Note that the vertical left edges of the building are always rough and grainy because of the horizontal scanning of the video readout system.) Compare the amount of blur or diffuseness of the bottom (horizontal) edge of the UFO image in the four frames with the amount of blur or diffuseness of the top (horizontal) edge of building in the four frames.
brumac.8k.com...

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/e72fa6cb57b1.gif[/atsimg]

Im not sure if you watched the videos, but there was a lot of fog, and eye witnesses described that from down below they could barely see the object, as it was almost the same color as the skies. Fog explains the blur you see in the video. As the "Titanic" CGI experts said, when the camera zooms in, the object stays the same, something impossible to do with a simple cgi program and especially for someone who would not gain anything for making the video. (They explained how much a program that could do the same effects would cost -at that time)

So this footage was delivered to Jaime Maussan anonymously in 1997 , take a look at what Mr Maussan was doing in 1997 .

1997 Director and producer of the program Tercer Milenio of television.
1997 Director general of the second worldwide congress UFO acapulco 1997.
1997 Director and founding president of company Producciones Maussan

I would suggest that this footage was created by Mr Maussan's production company , hence the good quality for its time , it was created by professionals employed by Mr Maussan

Tercer Milenio.
en.wikipedia.org...



.

Originally posted by gortex
So this footage was delivered to Jaime Maussan anonymously in 1997 , take a look at what Mr Maussan was doing in 1997 .

1997 Director and producer of the program Tercer Milenio of television.
1997 Director general of the second worldwide congress UFO acapulco 1997.
1997 Director and founding president of company Producciones Maussan

I would suggest that this footage was created by Mr Maussan's production company , hence the good quality for its time , it was created by professionals employed by Mr Maussan

Tercer Milenio.
en.wikipedia.org...



.

that's certainly a possibility, but that's just merely an assumption. It does not prove this video is fake because there aren't any facts that prove your theory.

Originally posted by Enter Ruin
that's certainly a possibility, but that's just merely an assumption. It does not prove this video is fake because there aren't any facts that prove your theory.

Exactly. Apparently it's only "believers" that need to provide facts to back up their claims, "skeptics" are exempted.

The motion blur "debunk" (seen above) is complete BS. Of course there's going to be blur on the buildings and not on the UFO - the buildings are stationary and the UFO is moving vertically (with the camera)! It's exactly what you would expect.

Really best ever?

OK so they can travel light years across the vastness of space and to earth, but can't iron out a few wobble problems, i find it hard to believe any civilization would settle for that LOL

While everything looks good its wobble is a real give away it looks like a 1940s holly wood block buster

reply to post by Enter Ruin


"No mames"..haha for those of you who know spanish